Supply Co. v. Mcreynolds

• Decision Date: 14 January 1932
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: BRISTOL BUILDERS SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. (Employer), AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (Insurer) v. BETTY LYONS MCREYNOLDS, ET ALS.

Page 468

157 Va. 468

BRISTOL BUILDERS SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. (Employer), AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (Insurer) v. BETTY LYONS MCREYNOLDS, ET ALS.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Staunton.

January 14, 1932.

Present, Campbell, C.J., and Holt, Epes, Hudgins and Browning, JJ.

1. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT — Liberal Construction. — The Workmen's compensation act (Acts 1918, chapter 400, page 637), although in derogation of the common law, is highly remedial, and should be liberally construed in favor of the workman.

2. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS — Expert and Opinion Evidence — Weight Attached to Diagnosis of Attending Physician — Questions of Law and Fact — Case at Bar. — The general rule is that when an attending physician is positive in his diagnosis of a disease, great weight will be given by the courts to his opinion. However, when it appears that the diagnosis is shaded by doubt, and there is medical expert opinion contrary to the opinion of the attending physician, then the trier of the fact is left free to adopt that view which is most consistent with reason and justice.

3. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT — Death from Pneumonia Following an Accident — Question as to Whether Claimant Died of Septic Pneumonia — Conflict in Testimony of Physicians — Case at Bar. — In the instant case claimant's husband, while engaged in the course of his employment, accidentally had a splinter embedded in his right arm. An infection of the wound followed, and about three weeks afterwards pneumonia developed and the employee died. The sole question at issue in the instant case, an appeal from an award in favor of the claimant and her minor children, was whether claimant's husband died of septic pneumonia. The testimony of the attending physicians was to the effect that the wound received by the employee did not produce the disease, but their testimony was hesitant and in conflict with their conclusion. Two additional physicians, testifying as experts, stated that in their opinion the disease was superinduced by the wound, and in answer to a hypothetical question three disinterested physicians stated that the case was septic pneumonia, probably due to the injury. The Industrial Commission was of opinion that the preponderance of the evidence showed that claimant's deceased died of septic pneumonia caused by infection from the wound.

Held: That the award of the Industrial Commission in favor of claimant should be affirmed.

Appeal from an award of the Industrial Commission.

The opinion states the case.

Sinnott, May & Leaman, for the appellants.

S. Bruce Jones and J. D. Baumgardner, for the appellees.

CAMPBELL, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from and award of the Industrial Commission of Virginia, in favor of appellee and her minor children and against appellants.

The salient facts are these:

The employer, Bristol Builders Supply Company, Inc., was engaged in the milling business in Bristol, Virginia, and had in its employ as a foreman the deceased husband of the claimant. As employer and employee, they came within the provisions of the workmen's compensation law of Virginia (Acts 1918, chapter 400, as amended), requiring the employer to pay compensation to its employees for injuries or death resulting from an accident arising out of and in the course of their employment.

On May 14, 1930, while engaged in the course of his employment, Horace G. McReynolds, husband of claimant, accidentally had a splinter embedded in his right arm just above the elbow. The splinter was removed, the wound mopped out with mercurochrome, and antiseptic dressing was applied. An infection of the wound followed, which was evidenced by redness extending three inches below the elbow. The following day employee was given a 1500 unit dose of antitoxin. Though still suffering from the wound, he reported for duty over a period of several days. On June 5, 1930, pneumonia developed, sudden in onset, accompanied by low leucocyte count, and on June 12th he departed this life.

The sole question in this case is whether or not the claimant's deceased died of septic pneumonia. If death did result from septic pneumonia, claimant is entitled to compensation; otherwise, she is not.

In Gobble Clinch Valley Lbr. Co., 141 Va. 303, 127 S.E. 175, 176, it is said:

"The workmen's compensation act (Acts 1918, chapter 400, page 637), although in derogation of the common law, is highly remedial, and should be liberally construed in favor of the workman. It is an effort on the part of the State to insure the workman to a limited extent against loss from accidents in his employment, to give him a speedy and expeditious remedy for his injury, and to place upon industry the burden of losses incident to its conduct. The compensation is furnished in weekly installments when most needed, promptly after the injury, and the immediate need of physicians and hospital service and supplies are furnished at the expense of the employer. Acts of this character have proved so beneficial that they have been adopted in nearly every State of the union."

The error assigned is:

"The Industrial Commission erred in awarding compensation because the evidence showed that the claimant's husband died as a result of pneumonia and that the pneumonia did not result from the accident."

Appellants rely upon what they contend is the uncontradicted evidence of the two attending physicians,...